What's in a name?

by Paul McLachlan

[2 April 2005, as Pope John Paul II appears to be slipping away.]

When Albino Luciano was elected Pope in August 1978, he took the name "John
Paul I". That was an odd and unprecedented choice for two reasons: first,
there had never been a Pope before who took two names; and second, there had
never been a Pope before who, choosing a novel name, added "the First"
to it. That is usually added by history once a second Pope honours the first
by taking his name.

He took the name "John Paul" because he wanted his Papacy to continue
the good work done by both his immediate predecessors. Many saw Pope John
XXIII and Pope Paul VI as quite different Popes. Certainly, they were different
in many ways. Pope John Paul I perhaps did not want to show a preference for
one or the other's style of leadership, so chose to emulate and honour them
both.

Pope John Paul I died after only a month as Pope and Karol Wojtyla, from
Poland, was elected in his stead. Cardinal Wojtyla chose to take the name
"John Paul II". With the first John Paul having so little time to
make any mark on the papacy, it was perhaps a sign of respect to his short
memory, as well as agreement with his reasons for taking the two names.

But, what of the Pope who will succeed John Paul II?

Will he be John Paul III? There will be a strong incentive to want
to demonstrate a willingness to continue in the same vein as this Pope. But,
perhaps because it has been such a long papacy, there will also be an equally
strong incentive to embark on a new path, and to demonstrate that intention
immediately by choosing a different name as Pope. As is clear from the successive
elections of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, the Cardinals are not averse
to replacing an outgoing Pope with a man who is quite his opposite in many
ways.

Assuming the new Pope chooses a name from a past Pope rather than using a
novel one, what might the choices suggest about his view of the direction
his papacy might take?

Pope John XXIII chose John, after a long line of Popes called Pius (broken
by a Leo and a Benedict). John had not been used for hundreds of years, since
John XXII (except by an anti-Pope!). It was a surprise choice, but given the
stark difference between Pius XII and John XXIII, it is perhaps not surprising
that he chose not to take Pius.

Paul VI, too, chose a name of one of the Apostles.

Given the greater emphasis on the Gospels in the post-Conciliar church, perhaps
another Apostle's name might be appropriate, or even John or Paul. Enough
time may now have passed that it would not seem partisan to choose either
John or Paul rather than both.

Becoming John XXIV might indicate a desire to further reform the Church,
to involve the Bishops more in decision-making (although that might would
play to the myth of John XXIII's papacy rather than the reality). Becoming
Paul VII might indicate a desire to continue the Church's strong moral
stances, while being open to the world and to further change within the Church.

Becoming Pius XIII would suggest a return to tradition, and perhaps
even the unwinding of some of the more radical changes that have occurred
since Vatican II. A greater emphasis on things like Latin and Gregorian Chant
in the liturgy, on absolute truth and grace and sacraments.

Becoming Leo XIV might suggest a desire to be ferocious in defending
the Church (a Lion!) and a desire to transform the world, rather than bend
to it. (Leo XIII is the source of much of the Church's modern teaching on
the structure of society and the Church's relationship with nations.)

A Gregory might want to restore many of the Church's lost treasures:
its beautiful liturgy and music.